Quick Links

Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA

The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.

Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Sony-sponsored Galaxy Review (possible spoilers)

AthenorWho needs lions when you have a battlecruiser?Registered Userregular

edit: People have a tendancy to not read more than the OP and post, so I'm reposting from below. I don't want to get in trouble for flame bait, so please keep this on topic.

This is one of the best cases I can see of a game review being paid for by a company. Now granted, usually it's the other way, paying for a favorable review. But this can't be good for the industry, can it?

And as was said, many of his points are defensible. So why does it need to be "sponsored?"

Edit2: Some notes. The "sponsored by Sony" part isn't showing up for some people now, although I've got confirmation from others that it was present last night. I've discovered (on page 2) that the "presented by Sony" thing is a header for a specific type of page, and can be applied to any review/article that Variety uses. This does not mean the article was published with or without the header, but more that it is a generic header and not specifically paying for the ad, only the category. It is a live ad, though.

This is one of the best cases I can see of a game review being paid for by a company. Now granted, usually it's the other way, paying for a favorable review. But this can't be good for the industry, can it?

And as was said, many of his points are defensible. So why does it need to be "sponsored?"

Eh, I have to agree with most of their critiques. I played it in a GameStop this weekend and I was surprised at the lack of motion controls; it felt like Mario 64 or Sunshine with the controller split in two.

Someone is trying too hard to find a conspiracy where there isn't one.

Eh, I have to agree with most of their critiques. I played it in a GameStop this weekend and I was surprised at the lack of motion controls; it felt like Mario 64 or Sunshine with the controller split in two.

Someone is trying too hard to find a conspiracy where there isn't one.

It is hard to call it a conspiracy when it is so blatant. I'd call it more like a slap to the face.

Although, I admit I agree with alot of the review. But then again, I don't really like Mario games. To me, it reads like a review by someone who doesn't like Mario games in the first place, with some "PS3 is Awesomer!" plugs thrown in due to money hatting.

To Clarify: I agree with the "the story is dumb and silly (like in all Mario games) and the 2 player mode is superfluous". And also with alot of his positive comments, about the physics and such. Of course, I don't think story or 2-player really matter in a Mario game, so I don't think that's a big hit.

Basically, he hated the controls, thought they didn't use motion sensing enough and thought the graphics were sub par. From this, he decided the game wasn't worth it.

I'll buy a Wii when I can use a lightsaber/The Force or Indy's whip with motion controls.

How hard would it be to make the best Indiana Jones game ever for the Wii? Punch dudes. Shoot dudes. Whip dudes. Swing over stuff.

Not hard.

Edit: Who is surprised that a videogame review in Variety isn't very good? But even still, the guy is just plain right about some of the stuff. I wasn't impressed with the graphics in Galaxy, either. There was some observatory or some such that needed power. How was this represented? Black textures. Yup. I can deal with lower poly counts or not-ultra-uber-high-super-res textures, but the game just looks kind of weird and uninspired. But I guess there's no convincing some of you that it isn't TEH BEST GAEM EVAR!~

If the first and only game you had ever played was Halo 3, and you were using it as a ruler to measure every other game because you thought it was the best thing to ever happen to gaming, then this review might make sense to you.

Halo 3 was just an example there, it could be replaced by any game defined by shiny graphics, action packed violence, and hardcore multiplayer.

And no, those points aren't defensible because none of them are bad things unless you expect every game to be the same. That review didn't actually review Galaxy as a game in and of itself, but instead compared it to things it's not supposed to be.

Especially the point where he said that the Wii's control setup was poor for a 3rd person game, specifically citing Zelda: Twilight Princess. Because that game was just atrocious to control.

I hope you're being as sarcastic as I am.

No I'm not. That is a defensible statement. Have you honestly never heard anyone say that lacking a dedicated camera stick (a once touted Nintendo feature) is less than ideal or that having half a controller in one hand and half in another is less than ideal?

Does what is being said here even make sense? No reasonable GAME company would PAY their own MONEY to talk about a GAME on another console.It's not exactly a scathing review, and variety is not game journalism.

Nobody here knows how the ad revenue for Variety is distributed, do they? I mean, Sony could have an existing advertising contract, perhaps with a specific clause that their logo will only be shown on the one gaming tidbit Variety happens to have. I think the article reads biased only out of journalistic ignorance.

The WORST part is that it says sponsored by Sony. That just invalidates everything he said, cause you know he;s being paid for it. If he said IT SUCKS, but that's just me, FINE. But he said it SUCKS with the Sony logo on top and a Rachet and Clank reference. Horrible.

This reminds me of the review that kept saying that Shadow of the Colossus is better than Twilight Princess and it's a shame that Nintendo fans aren't playing that instead. I think that was ordinary idiocy, though.

The WORST part is that it says sponsored by Sony. That just invalidates everything he said, cause you know he;s being paid for it. If he said IT SUCKS, but that's just me, FINE. But he said it SUCKS with the Sony logo on top and a Rachet and Clank reference. Horrible.

Again:
Nobody here knows how the ad revenue for Variety is distributed, do they? I mean, Sony could have an existing advertising contract, perhaps with a specific clause that their logo will only be shown on the one gaming tidbit Variety happens to have. I think the article reads biased only out of journalistic ignorance.

I am not saying I know shit, I'm just saying this is almost too lolsony to be true.

Especially the point where he said that the Wii's control setup was poor for a 3rd person game, specifically citing Zelda: Twilight Princess. Because that game was just atrocious to control.

I hope you're being as sarcastic as I am.

No I'm not. That is a defensible statement. Have you honestly never heard anyone say that lacking a dedicated camera stick (a once touted Nintendo feature) is less than ideal or that having half a controller in one hand and half in another is less than ideal?

Does what is being said here even make sense? No reasonable GAME company would PAY their own MONEY to talk about a GAME on another console.It's not exactly a scathing review, and variety is not game journalism.

Nobody here knows how the ad revenue for Variety is distributed, do they? I mean, Sony could have an existing advertising contract, perhaps with a specific clause that their logo will only be shown on the one gaming tidbit Variety happens to have. I think the article reads biased only out of journalistic ignorance.

I actually didn't think about this... its a good point. But try not to spoil the conspiracy fantasy going on here... it makes for great discussion... :|

MistaCreepy on November 2007

PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.

No I'm not. That is a defensible statement. Have you honestly never heard anyone say that lacking a dedicated camera stick (a once touted Nintendo feature) is less than ideal or that having half a controller in one hand and half in another is less than ideal?

While the designers usually put the camera in the best position possible, itâ€™s inevitable that gamers will sometimes wish they had a better view.

Did anyone actually see this? Because I visited the site and I can't find a single article that has a sponsored company in the corner like in that picture. Admittedly I don't actually read the site so this is just a quick glance.

Does anyone else find it odd that the banner with the V DVD/ (covered) is different than what is actually shown when you visit the review?

The WORST part is that it says sponsored by Sony. That just invalidates everything he said, cause you know he;s being paid for it. If he said IT SUCKS, but that's just me, FINE. But he said it SUCKS with the Sony logo on top and a Rachet and Clank reference. Horrible.

Again:
Nobody here knows how the ad revenue for Variety is distributed, do they? I mean, Sony could have an existing advertising contract, perhaps with a specific clause that their logo will only be shown on the one gaming tidbit Variety happens to have. I think the article reads biased only out of journalistic ignorance.

I am not saying I know shit, I'm just saying this is almost too lolsony to be true.

Didn't read your post. I hope this is true cause otherwise the LOLSony IS too good to be true.

Imagine if Nintendo payed this guy for reviews of PSX games back in 1997.

This game looks like blocky garbage, just like every other game on the PlayStation. Crippling load times of a minute or more hider the action at every turn. The d-pad simply cannot deliver true 3D control. The lack of camera buttons found on the N64 make controlling games unruly. This system simply cannot do 3D, 3rd person action games. The multiplayer support is abysmal. How am I supposed to have a party with only two controller ports?

Edit: I'm not saying that Sony paid for this, just the legitimate faults can be found in even the best of systems. The review is utterly worthless because it's negative for mostly stupid reasons you could find for any system. It's like giving a 360 game a bad review because its not on a high-capacity Blu-Ray disc or in 1080p. It's like giving a PS3 game a bad review because the system that it's on used to cost too much or has mediocre online support. It's like giving a PSP game a bad review because the thumb nubbin is uncomfortable and the battery life is crummy and the loading times are longer than you'd like.

The point is, this review is worthless because it says virtually nothing about the actual game or how fun it is.

Imagine if Nintendo payed this guy for reviews of PSX games back in 1997.

This game looks like blocky garbage, just like every other game on the PlayStation. Crippling load times of a minute or more hider the action at every turn. The d-pad simply cannot deliver true 3D control. The lack of camera buttons found on the N64 make controlling games unruly. This system simply cannot do 3D, 3rd person action games. The multiplayer support is abysmal. How am I supposed to have a party with only two controller ports?

I remember alot of people talking like that back then...

MistaCreepy on November 2007

PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.

The worst example of a review being bought for a terrible, terrible, game.

Also, just because Variety's video game review section is sponsored by Sony doesn't mean the individual review was swayed. There is a chance that the reviewer just doesn't like Mario Galaxy. I doubt we could take this review with anything other than a grain of salt, it's obvious that the reviewer isn't a gamer (which doesn't really seem to matter to Variety).

I get really annoyed, as a rule, with any reviewer who docks a game down because it doesn't have a) graphics/controls/whatever that the system can't technically accomplish or b) features that they would have added if they designed the game.

Just comes off as spiteful and biased, regardless of Sony sponsorship. Grade a game on the merit of it's home system, not on how much better it would be on others or is in your head. This happens with so many reviews, and not just for Wii games either...

The whole article reads like someone handed the writer a memo that said "Need X words worth of snark on the new Mario game. Camera angle and motion control are pretty subjective, so make sure you hammer on that. Oh, and take a few potshots at the graphics, since the Wii is the most underpowered of the big three." Any review that goes out of its way to say "this is one of the greatest platformers ever.... now here's why you should hate it" is meant to agitate and annoy, and nothing else.

At worst, there's a huge ZOMG CONSPIRACY at work here. At best (and far more likely), they're just trying to be a dissenting voice in the hopes that it garners a few more page hits for their site.

UndefinedMonkey on November 2007

This space intentionally left blank.

0

AthenorWho needs lions when you have a battlecruiser?Registered Userregular

Did anyone actually see this? Because I visited the site and I can't find a single article that has a sponsored company in the corner like in that picture. Admittedly I don't actually read the site so this is just a quick glance.

Does anyone else find it odd that the banner with the V DVD/ (covered) is different than what is actually shown when you visit the review?